Central Laboratory of the Research Councils: Quinquennial Review

Baroness Uddin: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When the Quinquennial Review of the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils will take place and what the terms of reference for the review will be.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I am today launching the Quinquennial Review of the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils.
	Reviews of Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) are an important part of our modernisation programme to modernise government. The Government are committed to achieving better public services that are of higher quality and are more responsive to the needs of the people who use them. Regular NDPB reviews are an important element in ensuring that we have in place the right structures to deliver the Government's agenda effectively and to provide a strong focus on improving future performance.
	The terms of reference for the review of the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils are:
	CCLRC was established in February 1995 and so it is due for review in the course of 2000.
	The review of CCLRC will have two stages.
	The first stage will examine the role, organisation and composition and funding mechanisms for CCLRC, by reference to its charter and mission, its past performance, recent CCLRC-instigated studies on future vision and funding, current best practice for NDPBs and contribution to the work of other Research Councils. All relevant options for the future of the Council will be considered, including abolition, continued NDPB status, rationalisation, privatisation or strategic contracting out.
	The conduct of the second stage will be dependent on and informed by the outcome of the first. If the first stage confirms the continued operation of CCLRC in its present or another form, this stage will examine the opportunities for improving performance by reference to such issues as management structures, aims and objectives, performance targets and service standards, use of new technology, levels of delegated authority and effective accountability. In that event, the review will take account of evidence of work already undertaken to review and improve performance. Opportunties for expanding the present range of users of facilities and services and optimising the contribution of facilities and services to exploitable research will also be considered.
	The review will be conducted in accordance with the latest Cabinet Office guidance (published on 31 January 2000) and will include consultation, either in person or in writing, with members of council, staff of the Executive and CCLRC's customers and key stakeholders.
	The review team will report at intervals to a review board. It will be the task of the review board to respond flexibly to the reviewer's proposals during the progress of the review, each member contributing guidance and knowledge, including, where appropriate, the good offices of his or her department or organisation. The review board will ensure that Ministers, the Treasury, the Cabinet Office and the staff and customers of the CCLRC are kept informed of the progress of the review and will facilitate the gathering of information for the reviewer and his or her communication with staff and customers.
	The review will be supported by officials in the Office of Science and Technology, with specialist advice as appropriate. The review board will be chaired by Sir Peter Williams and will include key stakeholder representatives. The aim will be to complete each stage of the review within a period of approximately three months, as recommended in the Cabinet Office guidance.
	As indicated in the terms of reference, the Review Team is seeking the views of interested parties. A questionnaire is available from the CCLRC website (http.//www.clrc.ac.uk/qreview) or from:
	CCLRC Quinquennial Review Team
	Office of Science and Technology
	Room G/5
	Albany House
	94-98 Petty France
	London SW1H 9ST
	tel: 020 7271 2050
	email: cclrc.qrteam@dti.gsi.gov.uk
	Initial comments should be sent to the above address by 4 July 2000.

Company Insolvency, Razzaq v. Pala Decision

Lord Hoyle: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What assessment has been made of the impact of the decision in the case of Razzaq v. Pala on plans to establish a rescue culture for companies.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The decision in that case is a matter for some concern and I therefore propose to undertake an urgent consultation on the issues raised by that decision against the possibility of their being addressed in the context of the current proposed legislation on insolvency.
	A consultation paper has been issued asking whether or not landlords should continue to be able to effect peaceable re-entry (without the leave of the court) while a company or an individual is the subject of a statutory moratorium in the context of an insolvency procedure. Copies of that document have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

Salaried Defence Service and Choice of Representative in Criminal Proceedings: Consultation Papers

Viscount Chandos: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they intend to publish consultation papers on (i) establishing a salaried defence service and draft code of conduct for salaried defenders employed by the Legal Services Commission; and (ii) choice of representative in criminal proceedings.

Lord Irvine of Lairg: I have today placed copies of both consultation papers in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies are also available on my department's website at http://www.open.gov.uk/lcd.

Lord Chancellor's Department: Expenditure Limit

Baroness Massey of Darwen: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have any proposals to amend the Lord Chancellor's Department's Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2000-01.

Lord Irvine of Lairg: Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class V, Vote 1, the Lord Chancellor's Department's Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2000-01 will be increased by £10,000,000 from £2,515,609,000 to £2,525,609,000. The increase is in respect of an award from the Capital Modernisation Fund for the "Crown Court Programme".
	The increase will be offset by a transfer from the Capital Modernisation Fund and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

London Elections: Spoiled Ballot Papers

Lord Jenkin of Roding: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Whitty on 22 May (WA 43), whether the figures for turnout in the elections for the Mayor and the Greater London Assembly include or exclude spoiled ballot papers; and whether they will give the figures for spoiled ballot papers at each of the seven London elections referred to in the Written Answer.

Lord Whitty: The turnout figures for the Mayor and London Assembly elections include all those who spoiled their ballot papers.
	In the Mayor and Assembly election on 4 May, each elector had four opportunities to vote--first choice for Mayor, second choice for Mayor, constituency assembly member and London member. If an elector chose not to vote in any one of the four ballots by leaving the ballot paper "blank"--as they have every right to do--this was recorded as a "rejected" vote. Other "rejected" votes were "multiple votes", where the voter had voted more than once, papers where marks identify the voter and "uncertain votes", where the voter's intention was not clear.
	Thirty eight thousand, one hundred and forty-one ballot papers for the Mayor election were rejected; 293,168 voters did not give a valid second preference for Mayor. For the London Assembly, 161,972 ballot papers in the Constituency Member election were classified as rejected and 88,142 ballot papers in the London Member election were classified as rejected. The vast majority of rejected papers were left blank, so it is clear that whilst most electors gave a first choice for Mayor, a large number decided not to give a second choice for Mayor, or vote for the Assembly.
	The number of rejected ballot papers at GLC elections were:
	1964* 8,213
	1967* 6,456
	(excludes Hounslow--for which figures are not available)
	1970* 4,842
	1973 7,704
	1977 8,258
	1981 9,725
	*multi-seat constituencies used
	Eighteen thousand, eight hundred and eighty-eight ballot papers were classified as rejected in the 1986 ILEA election.

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Baroness Lockwood: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will announce new measures to conserve and enhance areas of outstanding natural beauty.

Lord Whitty: We have announced today that the Government will shortly bring forward amendments to the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill as part of a series of measures to safeguard the status of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) and provide for their proper protection and management. The amendments will make provision for the creation of Conservation Boards for individual, larger AONBs where this would benefit their cohesive management and where there is local support for such a move. They will also require the adoption of a Management Plan for each AONB.
	The Government have already indicated their support for AONBs through increasing the budget available to them via the Countryside Agency almost threefold over three years (from £2.1 million in 1998-99 to £5.9 million this year). We will continue to ensure that Government funding is available to work alongside local authorities in managing AONBs in partnership.

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Baroness Lockwood: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their policy on planning protection for areas of outstanding natural beauty.

Lord Whitty: The Government accept the view put by the then Countryside Commission in Section 4 of their publication Protecting our finest landscapes: advice to Government (1998), that the landscape qualities of National Parks and Areas of Oustanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) are equivalent. Conserving and enhancing the beauty of the landscape are objectives for both types of designation. The Government therefore believe that the protection given to both types of area by the land use planning system should also be equivalent.
	The Government's planning policies for AONBs are set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 7: The Countryside--Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development (Revised February 1997). PPG7 states that "The Government regards National Park Designation as conferring the highest status of protection as far as landscape and scenic beauty are concerned." This reflects the National Park Authorities' primary objective to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Parks. It does not mean that the landscape beauty of AONBs is in any way inferior to that of National Parks. AONBS should therefore share the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.
	In relation to major projects, it is the Government's view that, henceforth, the assessment required in paragraph 4.5 of PPG7 in National Parks should also apply to proposals for major development in AONBs. Such proposals should be demonstrated to be in the public interest before being allowed to proceed. Consideration of applications should therefore normally include an assessment of:
	(i) the need for the development, in terms of national considerations, and the impact of permitting it or refusing it on the local economy;
	(ii) the cost of and scope for developing elsewhere outside the area or meeting the need for it in some other way;
	(iii) any detrimental effect on the environment and the landscape, and the extent to which that should be moderated.
	The guidance in the preceding paragraph therefore replaces the last two sentences of paragraph 4.8 of PPG7.

Rail Passenger Service Franchises

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In assessing bids for new or extended rail passenger franchises, what weight is given to: (a) present performance of franchisees: (b) new service proposals; and (c) price offered.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: There are no specified weightings. The Instructions and Guidance which the Deputy Prime Minister gave to the Franchising Director last year ask him to evaluate replacement bids giving due weight to the following criteria; commitment to performance, customer services, innovation, investment and efficiency; the extent to which extra or earlier investment can be obtained; the extent to which better performance can be secured; the extent to which integrated transport measures can be achieved; the extent to which passengers will be a greater voice in the level and standard of services and affordability and value for money to the taxpayer.

Rail Passenger Service Franchises

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What levels of poor service to passengers would exclude existing franchise operators from being awarded new or extended rail passenger franchises in compliance with the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising Objectives, Instructions and Guidance for the Secretary of State.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: There are no specific levels--past performance is one of the many criteria that will be taken into account when assessing bids for new franchises.

Badger Cull: Cost of Research

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How much money they have spent and are planning to spend in the immediate future on killing badgers.

Baroness Hayman: The Government's research strategy for cattle TB includes a badger culling trial designed to establish what contribution badgers make to TB in cattle and to assess whether culling them helps to reduce the disease in cattle. The costs associated with the trial, including extensive surveying of badger territories, along with vehicles, office accommodation and other overheads were £4.2 million in 1999-2000. Final allocations for the current year have yet to be decided.

BSE and Whole Herd Slaughter

Lord Glentoran: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they intend to adopt a whole herd slaughter policy for future BSE incidents.

Baroness Hayman: No.

BSE and Whole Herd Slaughter

Lord Glentoran: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they support the action last week of the Labour Members of the European Parliament, who voted for a retrospective whole herd slaughter policy.

Baroness Hayman: The agreed policy of the Labour group of MEPs was to vote against the amendments that would introduce herd slaughter. Mistaken votes recorded for two Labour MEPs were subsequently corrected.

Interception of Communications Tribunal: President

Lord Peston: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What arrangements have been made following the expiry of the term of appointment of the President of the Interception of Communications Tribunal on 4 April.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Mr Justice Burton has been appointed as President of the Interception of Communications Tribunal for a period of five years.

Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Complaints Audit Committee Report

Lord Peston: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will publish the annual report for 1999 of the Complaints Audit Committee of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: A copy of the report has been placed in the Library. It is a useful and informative document and I am grateful to the Committee for its comments and its recommendations, which will all be followed up. The report also includes details of the broadening of the Committee's terms of reference to reflect its role in monitoring complaints arising from the enhanced powers of immigration officers under Part VII of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

Prison Service Race Relations Group: Report

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will publish the report of the Prison Service race relations group.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: A copy of the ninth report of the Prison Service race relations group to the Prison Service Management Board has been placed in the Library.

Home Office: Expenditure Limit

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What proposals they have for changes to the 2000-01 department expenditure limits within the Home Secretary's responsibility.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Departmental Expenditure Limited (DEL), which covers Class IV Vote 1 (Home Office administration, police, probation, immigration and other services, England and Wales) and Vote 2 (Prisons, England and Wales), will be increased by £42,050,000 from £8,068,786,000 to £8,110,836,000.
	The changes are the net effect of the following transfers: £1,200,000 to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Class III Vote 1) in respect of neighbourhood wardens; £20,200,000 from the DEL Reserve for police modernisation; £2,900,000 from the Capital Modernisation Fund for the electronic chipping of goods; and, £20,150,000 from the Capital Modernisation Fund for the national strategy for police information systems.
	The increases will be offset by a charge on the Reserve and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.
	Changes to the budgeted amount for the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, which includes the costs of dealing with asylum seekers, have yet to be confirmed.

Merrywood School Closure

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answers by the Baroness Blackstone on 23 March (WA38) and 5 June (WA133), what discussions took place between the Member of Parliament for Bristol South and Ministers other than in the Department for Education and Employment.

Baroness Blackstone: I am not aware of any discussions having taken place between the Member of Parliament for Bristol South and Ministers of other departments. As the noble Lord will be aware, the decision on the proposal to close Merrywood School was for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. Any discussions with interested parties were therefore conducted with my ministerial colleagues.

Education Council, 8 June 2000

Lord Stone of Blackheath: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What was the outcome of the Education Council held in Luxembourg on 8 June.

Baroness Blackstone: The Council of EC Education Ministers, at which the UK was represented by Nicol Stephen MSP, Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning in the Scottish Executive, adopted a Decision to establish the European Year of Languages 2001.
	Ministers held an open debate on the future challenges and objectives of education systems in the learning society. The Council agreed that education and training policies would play a key part in ensuring the successful follow-up to the conclusions agreed at the Lisbon European Council, and on the need for Education Ministers to feed into the Luxembourg Employment Process. Ministers recognised that benchmarks and the exchange of good practice could be useful tools in supporting appropriate action at member state level. Ministers put forward proposals for policy areas which should be covered by the report of Education Ministers to the Stockholm European Council in Spring 2001. Discussion covered the Commission's work on the e-learning initiative, which was welcomed by member states.
	The Commission presented a report on quality indicators in school education. It also gave progress reports on the Recommendation on Quality Evaluation in School Education, and the Recommendation on Mobility within the Community for students, persons undergoing training, young volunteers, teachers and trainers.
	A copy of the Council minutes will be placed in the Library.

Social Affairs Council, 6 June

Baroness Mallalieu: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What was the outcome of the Social Affairs Council held in Luxembourg on 6 June.

Baroness Blackstone: My honourable friend Angela Eagle, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Social Security and my honourable friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities represented the UK at the Social Affairs Council meeting on 6 June.
	Political agreement was reached by the Council on a directive implementing the principle of equal treatment of persons irrespective of their racial or ethnic origin. This is the first legislative proposal brought under Article 13 of the Treaty. The directive covers a range of issues including employment, access to social protection and social security; access to education; and access to goods and services. All member states with scrutiny reserves, including the UK, lifted them.
	The Presidency gave a progress report on negotiations on the other proposals brought forward under Article 13--a draft directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation and a Community Action Programme.
	The Council debated its role in following up the Special European Council held in Lisbon in March and its input to the Spring European Council to be held in 2001. The Council agreed conclusions which would be transmitted to the Presidency of the EU before the European Council in Feira. The Council noted the Employment Committee's work programme for 2000.
	The Council unanimously adopted a decision setting up a Social Protection Committee. The Council endorsed a report of the High-level Working Group on Social Protection and agreed to submit it to the European Council at Feira. The report sets out two priorities--a pensions study and the indentification of common objectives and indicators of social protection.
	The Council discussed three outstanding issues arising from the Commission's proposals for simplification of Regulation 1408/71. The regulation concerns the co-ordination of member states' social security systems--including healthcare--and is aimed at assisting free movement of workers within the Community. None of the issues was resolved. Technical negotiations will continue at official level.
	The Council adopted a mixed Resolution (of the Council and of the Ministers for Employment and Social policy meeting within the Council) on the balanced participation of men and women in working and family life.
	The Council reached broad agreement on the draft directive on temporary work at height (the "Scaffolding Directive").
	The Commission made a presentation on its study of the implications of the European Court of Justice rulings (Decker and Kohll) concerning reimbursement for medical treatment: these will be made available to member states following further relevant rulings from the Court.

Mr Vasili Mitrokhin: Intelligence and Security Committee Report

Lord Dubs: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they expect to publish the Intelligence and Security Committee's report into the handling of the information provided by Vasili Mitrokhin.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: I have today laid before the House a copy of the Intelligence and Security Committee's report into the security and intelligence agencies' handling of the information provided by Mr Mitrokhin. In consultation with the committee, a small number of excisions from the original text have been made on grounds of national security. I have also today laid before the House the Government's response to the committee's report.
	The Government are very grateful to the committee for the report of its inquiry. Mr Mitrokhin's information is uniquely valuable. Its authenticity has been proved beyond doubt. The Government have drawn a number of conclusions from the information itself, from the publication project and from the findings of the Intelligence and Security Committee's inquiry. The most significant are:
	(i) The KGB posed a major threat to British interests but the United Kingdom's security and intelligence agencies were notably successful in containing this threat. After the expulsion of more than 100 Soviet intelligence officers in 1971, the KGB found the United Kingdom an extremely difficult target and operational environment.
	(ii) Mr Mitrokhin himself is a brave man who was determined in his efforts to expose the KGB. The Government pay tribute to him.
	(iii) Credit is due to the Secret Intelligence Service for its role in getting Mr Mitrokhin and his material safely to the United Kingdom. This was a tremendous intelligence coup. Credit is also due to the security and intelligence agencies for their work in exploiting the material. This has been beneficial not only for the UK but also for many other countries.
	(iv) The publication project, leading to The Mitrokhin Archive, allowed Mr Mitrokhin's material to be made available to a wider readership. The Government believe that it was right to put this historic record into the public domain.
	(v) Lessons have been learnt from the handling of Mrs Norwood's case.
	Finally, I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to our intelligence and security agencies for their dedication and professionalism in protecting our vital national interests.